A new airport.... South Yorkshire Airport City?

[radar]

Dr No-Mandate

Cringe…

 

[Eusebius]

Cringe…

 

[pug]

Dr No-Mandate must have heard you!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/18/burnham-plans-to-hand-income-tax-powers-to-labour-mayors/

Although it's too little too late for a project facing a September funding cliff.

What the coronation of Dr No-Mandate does though is provide a very convenient political offramp. Instead of admitting defeat in September due to failure to fix the lease or lack of commercial viability, Coppard now has a macro-economic excuse to pull the plug. He can frame the surrender of the lease as a strategic pause:

"In light of the Government's historic decision to devolve income tax powers, it would be fiscally irresponsible to lock South Yorkshire into a restrictive 125-year lease today. We are halting the current procurement to reassess our strategic options - including acquiring the freehold outright - once our new fiscal powers are legally established."

Does this change anything for the immediate survival of the current DSA reopening project? No. The project remains commercially necrotic, and the S151 Officer will still be forced to act when the interim money runs out in a few weeks time.

However, it changes the political exit strategy. It provides local leaders with a dignified narrative to abandon a toxic lease, accept the £48.6m short-term wind-up costs, and pivot toward a much longer, multi-year strategy (they might resurrect the CPO idea) once their new tax powers are enshrined in law. The current project is still going to die, but they now have a convenient excuse for the funeral.

Basically they'll then just let the whole idea fade into the background noise and wait for everyone to lose interest.

I’m not sure, if this current situation does come to an end then they certainly will not announce it. They’ll pivot to a CPO like you say. Meanwhile Peel will allow an early termination but in return will probably want the land back to start exploring productive uses for it, they have history of taking the concrete breakers through the middle of the runway first. I expect CDC and SYMCA are working on a plan to at least delay that from happening, and wouldn’t be surprised to see another pot of money pop up to buy them more time.

 

[Eusebius]

I expect CDC and SYMCA are working on a plan to at least delay that from happening, and wouldn’t be surprised to see another pot of money pop up to buy them more time.

Probably. The trouble is, the cash burn rate of having the site on their hands. Unless they can find a lot of money from somewhere, it won't kick the can all that far down the road. Getting the architects of this disaster safely out of the blast radius needs years not another couple of months.

 

[pug]

Probably. The trouble is, the cash burn rate of having the site on their hands. Unless they can find a lot of money from somewhere, it won't kick the can all that far down the road. Getting the architects of this disaster safely out of the blast radius needs years not another couple of months.

Fair point. Ultimately we don’t know whether Peel will agree to anything that makes Gainshare deliverable. However it does appear that the council have stitched themselves up by unwittingly signing an original lease that basically approves mixed use of the land and does not atipulate aviation uses.

Everything points to the council trying to maintain the narrative. How would they do this in the event that the staff have to be laid off or that the exit clause is triggered from the lease? They simply will not be able ti pivot to the changes in political leadership and regional funding, as I bet the first thing Peel would do is have the concrete breakers through the middle of the runway. People would call them out on that, but it’s a ruthless upholding of policy. Once the runway is torn up, no matter where, it ain’t coming back.

I can therefore see another £10million bung to buy them another year to keep the narrative going. I don’t know where it’ll come from but the pattern so far suggests it will.

 

[Speedbird1]

It really is jobs for the boys at DSA….Gary and Matthew Winterman running the cargo side. They just happen to be family members. Would love to have seen the recruitment process for that.

Also notice they are now using the term “The People’s Airport” on marketing, mainly using AI as they clearly dont have a marketing department.

I’d love to see what they are presenting to prospective airlines because based on everything else I’ve seen, it’ll be a mess.

 

[Guppy]

Well they still wasting money, they have just carried out the “third” yes “third” meet the buyer.

And of course at the event:

“Speaking at the sessions, Dan Fell MBE, Chief Executive of Doncaster Chamber, called on the new Prime Minister to support DSA as a transformational economic project for South Yorkshire and the wider North. While regional partners have done the heavy lifting to reach this stage, Fell said national backing is needed for DSA to realise its full potential as a nationally significant airport. He highlighted the importance of a rail link to the airport, which would support route development, improve connectivity for businesses and residents, and help relieve pressure on the East Coast Main Line. Fell said, "Every time the business community has stepped in, it has been to remind decision-makers of the strength of support behind this project. The economic prize is significant and becoming clearer every day. DSA is exactly the kind of ambitious regeneration project that deserves Government backing, and we hope Ministers will support future infrastructure investment, including a railway station serving the airport." Fell added that if the Prime Minister is serious about driving growth, DSA is exactly the kind of ambitious regeneration project that could define his time in Downing Street. Doncaster Chamber is now urging the new Government to show the same commitment to South Yorkshire as it has to other major northern growth projects, helping drive investment, connectivity and long-term economic growth. “

 

[pug]

It really is jobs for the boys at DSA….Gary and Matthew Winterman running the cargo side. They just happen to be family members. Would love to have seen the recruitment process for that.

Also notice they are now using the term “The People’s Airport” on marketing, mainly using AI as they clearly dont have a marketing department.

I’d love to see what they are presenting to prospective airlines because based on everything else I’ve seen, it’ll be a mess.

I notice that one of them is off to Farnborough Airshow. Nice little jolly at tax payers expense I guess. He’s looking forward to boring telling people about the opportunities available at a reopened DSA.

It’s narrative maintenance not industry engagement. There’s a key difference.

 

[Eusebius]

Right on cue!

Andy Burnham urged to back Doncaster Sheffield Airport reopening project

The reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport has been controversial due to the used of public money and some of the conditions of the lease agreement.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

When local funding mechanisms hit a statutory wall and commercial negotiations reach a terminal deadlock, the architects of the disaster inevitably look upward! Dan Fell and the local Chamber of Commerce are playing a desperate game of pass the parcel with a live grenade, hoping the new Prime Minister will catch it before the September deadline.

 

[pug]

Right on cue!

Andy Burnham urged to back Doncaster Sheffield Airport reopening project

The reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport has been controversial due to the used of public money and some of the conditions of the lease agreement.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

When local funding mechanisms hit a statutory wall and commercial negotiations reach a terminal deadlock, the architects of the disaster inevitably look upward! Dan Fell and the local Chamber of Commerce are playing a desperate game of pass the parcel with a live grenade, hoping the new Prime Minister will catch it before the September deadline.

I think Burnham will have enough to deal with, he’ll probably offer some warm words to tie it in with his greater devolution plans. It’ll be used to provide another bridge funding package though and they’ll justify it by saying something like ‘with the change in leadership there are other avenues to explore’.

 

[Guppy]

BBC post

Reading between the lines on this, it really looks like the future of the airport is literally in the hands of Peel. If they don’t renegotiate the turnover rent clause then they won’t release the funds. I’m sure Peel will do whatever gives them the best return on their investment.

 

[pug]

BBC post

Reading between the lines on this, it really looks like the future of the airport is literally in the hands of Peel. If they don’t renegotiate the turnover rent clause then they won’t release the funds. I’m sure Peel will do whatever gives them the best return on their investment.

It’s Peel, but the ACP isn’t in Peel’s hands — it’s in the CAA’s. And the CAA only moves an ACP to Stage 3 if the paperwork meets CAP1616 procedural requirements. It’s not an endorsement of the substantive content.

That’s why the document that appeared last week and was quickly withdrawn matters. It was only ‘outdated’ in the procedural sense that Stage 2 had technically concluded — but the findings inside it are still entirely relevant. It was newer than several Stage 2 documents still on the portal, and it was the only one containing the CAA’s substantive concerns, including the ‘particularly speculative’ line about the passenger forecasts. Those issues haven’t been addressed; they simply aren’t part of the Stage 2 pass/fail criteria.

Objectors will absolutely pick up on this. The BGA in particular will have a field day during consultation because the CAA has effectively said: the process is compliant, but the underlying case is weak. Passing Stage 2 doesn’t mean the CAA approves the proposal — it just means the sponsor can move forward while those concerns carry into Stage 4 and Stage 5.

As for Peel, I agree the lease saga isn’t over. More money in September looks likely, but lease signature and Gainshare approval still feel much less certain at this point

 

[Speedbird1]

A certain South Yorkshire based “Travel Expert” who I believe has ties into SYCMA has posted around airport drop off fees on LinkedIn and called for Burnham to ban them. It’s absolutely laughable that someone that vocally supports the reopening of DSA also calls for one of the airports most vital revenue streams to be banned by government.

Funny how he doesn’t mention DSA at all, but calls out Manchester and East Midlands.

South Yorkshire really do have the lunatics running the asylum.

 

[pug]

A certain South Yorkshire based “Travel Expert” who I believe has ties into SYCMA has posted around airport drop off fees on LinkedIn and called for Burnham to ban them. It’s absolutely laughable that someone that vocally supports the reopening of DSA also calls for one of the airports most vital revenue streams to be banned by government.

Funny how he doesn’t mention DSA at all, but calls out Manchester and East Midlands.

South Yorkshire really do have the lunatics running the asylum.

He’s just an idealist/fantasist. He likes the railways if it’s the person I’m thinking of. I don’t think he has all that much influence within SYMCA other than someone who promotes the cause on social media, much like Chadwick does really.

Quite how the government will do away with drop off charges is beyond me though. I think they’ve got more important things to be getting on with.

 

[White Heather]

He’s just an idealist/fantasist. He likes the railways if it’s the person I’m thinking of. I don’t think he has all that much influence within SYMCA other than someone who promotes the cause on social media, much like Chadwick does really.

Quite how the government will do away with drop off charges is beyond me though. I think they’ve got more important things to be getting on with.

How can a Government force a privately owned business to stop charging drivers when using their land, which we do every time we visit the airport car park? How an airport makes their ends meet isn't a Government matter. However, if they were to reduce tax on flying, airport business rates, and reduce demands constantly made on airports to upgrade, or change equipment, or undertake S106 works, and help them develop the business, then maybe airports might be happy to reduce drop off fees significantly. For now, airports are expected to invest, upgrade, increase business, reduce emissions, undertake works via S106 that the Local Authorities don't bother with, encourage public transport use (that earns them very little), subsidise that public transport, pay the Government ever increasing business rates whilst watching airlines struggle and passenger numbers dwindle due to the actions of politicians.

Of course, if DSA2 ever opens the public ownership (of sorts) with its public funds backing can play by a different set of rules as far as parking is concerned, and increase their loss making to even greater degrees. I wonder though how they could justify not charging at DSA whilst continuing to charge motorists visiting the city centre? One rule for the airport and another for all the other businesses who undoubtedly would see more custom if parking outside was available at no cost, even when just dropping off.

 

[pug]

How can a Government force a privately owned business to stop charging drivers when using their land, which we do every time we visit the airport car park? How an airport makes their ends meet isn't a Government matter. However, if they were to reduce tax on flying, airport business rates, and reduce demands constantly made on airports to upgrade, or change equipment, or undertake S106 works, and help them develop the business, then maybe airports might be happy to reduce drop off fees significantly. For now, airports are expected to invest, upgrade, increase business, reduce emissions, undertake works via S106 that the Local Authorities don't bother with, encourage public transport use (that earns them very little), subsidise that public transport, pay the Government ever increasing business rates whilst watching airlines struggle and passenger numbers dwindle due to the actions of politicians.

Of course, if DSA2 ever opens the public ownership (of sorts) with its public funds backing can play by a different set of rules as far as parking is concerned, and increase their loss making to even greater degrees. I wonder though how they could justify not charging at DSA whilst continuing to charge motorists visiting the city centre? One rule for the airport and another for all the other businesses who undoubtedly would see more custom if parking outside was available at no cost, even when just dropping off.

Well one of the things they may work on is a tax on leisure flights after the first flight taken in a year. In other words a tax on people who can afford more than one holiday abroad every year. I’m sure industry would lobby against this proposal but begs the question as to how much appetite the incoming government has for new airports being opened, or in this case reopened.

 

[Eusebius]

If Burnham touches this project, the inevitable collapse in September becomes his failure. He won't go near it.

Besides, bailing it out would signal to every mayor in the country that they can pursue massively expensive crackpot vanity projects, safe in the knowledge that Westminster will step in once they've blown all their own money.

Net Zero will give them the excuse, if they need one.

 

[pug]

If Burnham touches this project, the inevitable collapse in September becomes his failure. He won't go near it.

Besides, bailing it out would signal to every mayor in the country that they can pursue massively expensive crackpot vanity projects, safe in the knowledge that Westminster will step in once they've blown all their own money.

Net Zero will give them the excuse, if they need one.

I get where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t be quite as certain that Burnham will steer clear.

Yes, Net Zero gives everyone an easy external explanation if things go south — that part of your point stands. But this Government is also signalling a shift toward regional self‑determination, local growth, and high‑visibility regeneration projects. DSA fits that narrative almost perfectly.

Coppard being at the inaugural No10 North meeting today is telling. If the new administration wants to showcase that it’s backing regional priorities, DSA is exactly the kind of project they’d use - big, visible, popular locally, and symbolically tied to ‘levelling up’ without being a Westminster‑driven scheme.

And while the other South Yorkshire authorities haven’t put money in, the political optics of supporting a regionally backed project are still strong. It’s a ready‑made opportunity for Government to say ‘We’re listening to local voices and backing local growth.’

So I wouldn’t rule out movement here. If they want a headline that demonstrates commitment to regional autonomy, DSA is sitting right there waiting to be picked

 

[Eusebius]

I get where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t be quite as certain that Burnham will steer clear.

Yes, Net Zero gives everyone an easy external explanation if things go south — that part of your point stands. But this Government is also signalling a shift toward regional self‑determination, local growth, and high‑visibility regeneration projects. DSA fits that narrative almost perfectly.

Coppard being at the inaugural No10 North meeting today is telling. If the new administration wants to showcase that it’s backing regional priorities, DSA is exactly the kind of project they’d use - big, visible, popular locally, and symbolically tied to ‘levelling up’ without being a Westminster‑driven scheme.

And while the other South Yorkshire authorities haven’t put money in, the political optics of supporting a regionally backed project are still strong. It’s a ready‑made opportunity for Government to say ‘We’re listening to local voices and backing local growth.’

So I wouldn’t rule out movement here. If they want a headline that demonstrates commitment to regional autonomy, DSA is sitting right there waiting to be picked

However, Burnham has spent years arguing that mayors should have more fiscal autonomy. If his first act as Prime Minister is to have the Treasury bail out a mayor who has mismanaged a £193m regional infrastructure deal, it destroys the entire premise of devolution. Furthermore, Burnham is constrained by the Treasury's Green Book. If the CAA is already calling the passenger data "speculative" the Treasury will take one look at the business case, see the 20% Peel turnover clause, and veto any national capital injection.

We'll see, but I expect something like "my government is committed to the economic regeneration of South Yorkshire. However, the DSA reopening project is a locally devolved procurement process. It would be inappropriate for Westminster to intervene in ongoing commercial lease negotiations between the City of Doncaster Council and a private landowner. We stand ready to support Mr Coppard with enhanced devolved powers, but local projects must demonstrate value for the local taxpayer."

Something along those lines. As I see it it's just too much money, far too likely to fail and fail soon, and far too hard to square with the government's Net Zero commitments. If CDC/SYMCA were £20m short and just needed to get it over the line then I'm sure the new PM would step in. But you're looking at hundreds of millions for an airport that might never fly a single passenger.

 

[pug]

However, Burnham has spent years arguing that mayors should have more fiscal autonomy. If his first act as Prime Minister is to have the Treasury bail out a mayor who has mismanaged a £193m regional infrastructure deal, it destroys the entire premise of devolution. Furthermore, Burnham is constrained by the Treasury's Green Book. If the CAA is already calling the passenger data "speculative" the Treasury will take one look at the business case, see the 20% Peel turnover clause, and veto any national capital injection.

We'll see, but I expect something like "my government is committed to the economic regeneration of South Yorkshire. However, the DSA reopening project is a locally devolved procurement process. It would be inappropriate for Westminster to intervene in ongoing commercial lease negotiations between the City of Doncaster Council and a private landowner. We stand ready to support Mr Coppard with enhanced devolved powers, but local projects must demonstrate value for the local taxpayer."

Something along those lines. As I see it it's just too much money, far too likely to fail and fail soon, and far too hard to square with the government's Net Zero commitments. If CDC/SYMCA were £20m short and just needed to get it over the line then I'm sure the new PM would step in. But you're looking at hundreds of millions for an airport that might never fly a single passenger.

I take your point about fiscal autonomy but u still don’t think it’s as simple as Burnham refusing to go anywhere near it. Burnham has had years of dealing with Peel directly across Greater Manchester on land‑use, development and strategic planning issues. He knows exactly how Peel operate, how they negotiate, and how they position themselves in regional projects. That familiarity doesn’t make him more likely to bail them out, but it does mean he’s one of the few national‑level figures who can actually navigate Peel without being caught off‑guard by them.

And that’s where the political optics come in. This Government is clearly leaning into regional regeneration and regional identity, and DSA is a big, visible, locally popular project that fits neatly into that narrative. Coppard being at No10 North today isn’t accidental – it’s the kind of stage where a PM can stand next to a regional mayor and say they’re backing South Yorkshire’s future. That doesn’t have to mean a cheque. It can mean political cover, policy alignment, regulatory flexibility or simply a public signal that Westminster is behind the region’s ambitions.

So yes, Treasury discipline will be a factor, and yes, the business case will get scrutinised – especially the speculative passenger forecasts and the Peel turnover clause. But involvement doesn’t have to mean a bailout. It can be strategic support that helps Coppard without undermining the principle of devolved responsibility. Burnham’s past dealings with Peel actually make that easier, not harder. That’s why I wouldn’t rule out movement here. The risks are real, but the political incentives for a show of support are stronger than the purely fiscal reading suggests.

NB: this is not to say there’s going to be any change in the fundamental lack of viability of the site as an airport. Political motivation can only get you so far. So for anyone quietly lurking these forums, it will still fail but it may get a convenient stay of execution past September.